The SAT will soon begin reporting aspects of a student's background to colleges, in order to allow the college to factor it into admissions decisions. The idea is that someone who came from a privileged family and got great SAT scores may actually be less impressive than someone who came from a very difficult background and got merely good scores.
https://www.cnn.com/2019/05/16/us/sat-adversity-score/index.html
I like the overall idea, including as an alternative to race-based affirmative action. In school I knew some kids who were from a dirt-poor immigrant family, dealing with language, social, and economic obstacles, and yet when universities looked at them, they were just generically viewed as "Asian," and judged by harder standards than other applicants. Meanwhile, I had a friend who was the child of two doctors, whose grandparents had also gone to college, and who grew up with all the advantages money could buy. But, when colleges looked at her, she was "African American" and so assumed to have overcome major socioeconomic obstacles. Race-based affirmative action is probably better than making no attempt to address systemic racism, since it will diminish inequities more often than it will exacerbate them, just as a statistical reality. But more individualized approaches are superior.
Having said that, I question the way this particular plan is being set up. Specifically, the factors include "the crime rate and poverty levels of a student's high school and neighborhood." That's not terribly individualized, either. Consider two hypothetical students:
Student A comes from a poor family. They live in a space above the family's little restaurant, where the kids work in the evenings to help make ends meet. The restaurant, however, is in a pretty nice neighborhood... by design, since the family was desperate to get into a good school system, even if it meant cramming six people into a 900 square foot space and working themselves to the bone. (note, this hypothetical is based on a second cousin of mine)
Student B comes from a rich family. In fact, it's the wealthiest family in a whole county -- a rural county where they own the local car dealership and the patriarch is the mayor of the town. However, the town itself is pretty run-down. (note, this hypothetical is based on someone I knew in college).
Which of the two really overcame the most? Was it the one from the family scrimping and saving to live a spartan life in an expensive neighborhood, or the one living like feudal lords of an economically depressed kingdom? I'd argue that the first student overcame a lot more. You can live in a lousy town and attend a crummy school, but if you can afford to live in a gated community within that town and get expensive tutoring and enrichment opportunities, setting doesn't matter so much. In fact, you could be better off as a rich person in a poor neighborhood than a rich person in a rich one, given weaker academic competition and the ability of your dollar to go farther.
So, I'd argue in favor of an "adversity score" that was based strictly on money. Simply consider the parents' income over the prior five years, for example, and assign a score based on that. That's going to be the best realistic proxy for how much adversity the student likely faced.
...